Defendant\u2019s argument is really an evidentiary objection, not a ground to suppress. Suppression is denied. United States v. Sterling, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160728 (M.D.La. Aug. 24, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, the credited testimony of all three officers is that Deputy Lowe asked Mr. Tillman for consent to search the house for Richards. All three officers also testified that they did not enter the house until Mr. Tillman stepped to the side of the doorway, allowing them entry. Regardless of whether Mr. Tillman ever provided express consent, his conduct in stepping to the side of the doorway \u2018would have caused a reasonable person to believe\u2019 he consented to the officers’ entry to look for Richards. See Faler, 832 F.3d at 853 (quoting Jones, 254 F.3d at 695). Thus, the court finds that Mr. Tillman impliedly consented to the officers’ search of the residence.\u201d The hearing further showed defendant\u2019s consent. United States v. Mitchell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160717 (D.S.D. Aug. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The inclusion of one piece of information in the affidavit for the warrant was not a Franks violation. Even so, the remainder shows probable cause. United States v. Reis, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160719 (D.S.D. Aug. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Franks claim must do more than allege problems with the warrant \u2013 it needs to make an offer of proof that something is at least recklessly false and then it needs to affect the outcome. United States v. Weeden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160737 (N.D.Okla. Aug. 25, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s argument is really an evidentiary objection, not a ground to suppress. Suppression is denied. United States v. Sterling, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160728 (M.D.La. Aug. 24, 2021). \u201cHere, the credited testimony of all three officers is that Deputy Lowe … Continue reading